Undoubtedly, Sanders think that the failure of two (and counting) Republican attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare means the public is suddenly enamored with single-payer, government-controlled health care. But progressives and their ilk evidently can’t remember all the way back to 2010, 2014 and 2016, in which opposition to heavy-handed government-managed health care sent Republicans to Congress in droves and helped elect Donald Trump to the presidency.But thinking these Democratic electoral wipeouts were a result of Americans secretly wanting socialized health care is like Hollywood arguing its terrible summer box office was because “Boss Baby” wasn’t showing in enough theaters.It’s probably true that voters are skeptical of Republicans’ ability to fix the mess that is health care, especially when the party is led by an unpopular president whose knowledge of medical procedures seems to be limited to the plastic surgery performed on television personalities.

But the public saying, “I’m not so sure it’s a good idea to write and pass a bill in a week after Republicans had seven years to fix Obamacare” is far different than “I want the federal government fully in charge on my health care.”And this voter frustration has shown up in the polls; according to a recent POLITICO survey, 49% of Americans now support a single-payer plan, with two-thirds of Democrats on board. But the same poll shows a full one-third of Republicans in favor of socialized health care, which suggests that voters of both parties may just see a single-payer plan as a simple way to spare them from watching the horror film they’re seeing every day in Congress.But much like owning your own pet tiger, government-run health care is far better in theory than in practice.

Studies show that countries with pure, uncut single-payer plans have difficulty controlling health care costs, are forced to ration care, and provide worse service. Further, Sanders’ plan is estimated to cost $32 trillion over 10 years and move 150 million people off of their existing health plans. Even California, which enjoys Democratic supermajorities in both houses of its legislature, recently ditched an attempt to enact a single-payer plan when lawmakers realized it would cost twice as much as the entire state budget.More: For ESPN and Jemele Hill, mixing politics and sports is bad businessPOLICING THE USA:

A look at race, justice, mediaSo if you thought seniors were angry at the anti-Obamacare town halls of 2010, just wait until you hear them when government is completely taking over health care; it will be as if the federal government banned sending $1 bills in birthday cards.This is why Sanders has to use misdirection in selling his plan. To date, he has yet to explain how he’d actually pay for it. In the progressive world, health care is paid for with hugs and poems, but in the real world, it is paid for in taxes and deficits. Naturally, Sanders calls his plan “Medicare for All,” trying to soak up the goodwill from a program that is already working; yet Sanders’ plan to completely take health care over would be drastically different than the system of Medicare and Medicaid the government offers now.

So while Democrats may enjoy their brief flirtation with voters, they shouldn’t interpret it for a lasting relationship. Republicans still control both houses of Congress, the presidency (sort of) and 34 governorships, and the Democratic nominee just lost to perhaps the worst presidential candidate in American history. Democrats may think the public wants a passionate relationship with socialized health care, but in the end, they could just be setting their party on fire